Our perception of audio

[Cosmik]

So it's clear, my idea of "low end" is not a cell phone. Something better, say, than an old "large Advent", but not as good as a well-designed modern speaker in the 500$usd range.

The electronics at this level of performance are effectively free.

Seems as though we agree on this (just a bit further up this very page):

There is a minimum level of engineering required to do such a miraculous thing as summon the world's finest musicians to your living room on demand, and to do it well i.e. close to neutral. It costs in the region of, say, $1000 up to $5000 - but would be cheaper if millions of people were interested in buying it.

An audio system that costs the same as a car is clearly ridiculous. But 200 euros is too low, I think. My own system uses budget and second hand components and would probably come in at about 600 euros. I don't think it could be made from scratch with new components for that unless made in large quantities. It would be more than powerful enough for most living rooms.

Software is 'free'; electronic circuit boards are cheap; speaker drivers use metal, lots of copper, big magnets, plastic and glue and are heavy; boxes are bulky. There's a lot of parts to put together, and packaging and transporting the finished items won't be cheap. I don't believe there's any magic in exotic materials - it can be done with ordinary materials. It's all in the design and, as I say, a minimum level of engineering.

 

[Nowhk]

Seems as though we agree on this (just a bit further up this very page):

Its still all about taste

 

[Cosmik]

Its still all about taste

I should save your taste for choosing the recordings. The audio system should be 'tasteless' .

 

[Nowhk]

I should save your taste for choosing the recordings. The audio system should be 'tasteless' .

But physically, you can't. You operate a choice based on taste, even if its a "neutral" system, you don't?
Think to all the "neutral" alternatives you can have...

 

[Cosmik]

But physically, you can't. You operate a choice based on taste, even if its a "neutral" system, you don't?
Think to all the "neutral" alternatives you can have...

Only if you deliberately seek out weird, anachronistic speakers (most of them!). If you only listen to speakers designed to be objectively neutral, we find...

In my listen-off... The Kiis and 8Cs measure similarly, sound similar, and do similar things.

Most ASR members seem to agree that two well-designed amps, preamps, or DACs with similar specifications are likely to sound similar. Perhaps the same is becoming true of loudspeakers.

It's a simple engineering problem, and if tackled to the minimum required level we find that systems sound exactly the same - as we should expect.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Have said it many times before and will say it again lol. There is no correct or neutral polar response, and cannot ever be.*

*except arguably by convention, which will never happen, and which could not apply retrospectively to existing recordings even if it did happen

 

[Cosmik]

Have said it many times before and will say it again lol. There is no correct or neutral polar response, and cannot ever be.*

*except arguably by convention, which will never happen, and which could not apply retrospectively to existing recordings even if it did happen

I think we have narrowed it down, though. Omnidirectional point source would be quite close to a 'neutral' definition. But we find that this is not wholly compatible with a conventional living room and existing recordings, and so we narrow the dispersion angle down. But we stipulate a uniform dispersion angle for all frequencies and find that 'voicing' of the speaker is unnecessary, even in real rooms.

We are more-or-less there, it seems to me.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think we have narrowed it down, though. Omnidirectional point source would be quite close to a 'neutral' definition. But we find that this is not wholly compatible with a conventional living room and existing recordings, and so we narrow the dispersion angle down. But we stipulate a uniform dispersion angle for all frequencies and find that 'voicing' of the speaker is unnecessary, even in real rooms.

We are more-or-less there, it seems to me.

By “voicing” you mean deviating from flat axial response to compensate for erratic polars, right? Yeh, I agree we're beyond that.

And there’s certainly been a constant directivity trend in the past few years.

I just don’t see what the slam dunk argument for it is though. It’s room-friendly, which is a good practical argument, but beyond practicalities I don’t see how one can choose between the various options available (ie omni, CD, downward-sloping, and maybe even some of the weirder ones).

Then, even once we’ve decided on a particular option - let’s say it’s CD - the next unanswerable question is: what degree of directivity?

 

[Cosmik]

By “voicing” you mean deviating from flat axial response to compensate for erratic polars, right? Yeh, I agree we're beyond that.

And there’s certainly been a constant directivity trend in the past few years.

I just don’t see what the slam dunk argument for it is though. It’s room-friendly, which is a good practical argument, but beyond practicalities I don’t see how one can choose between the various options available (ie omni, CD, downward-sloping, and maybe even some of the weirder ones).

Then, even once we’ve decided on a particular option - let’s say it’s CD - the next unanswerable question is: what degree of directivity?

I think the fundamental point is that regardless of the choice of directivity, as long as it is constant it doesn't need the aforementioned voicing regardless of room (but I know this is not accepted by room correction people on principle - I disagree with them. Perhaps I've mentioned it previously ).

It is then a question of taste for your choice of directivity for your room - with a broad tolerance. I like monkey coffin, three-way style directivity (and of course my system isn't CD - but not terrible).

For sure, if all recordings were made with a certain 'slope', the playback system would need to be complementary. But thankfully many recordings are flat, so the speaker with the flat response sounds right - IMO.

 

[andreasmaaan]

For sure, if all recordings were made with a certain 'slope', the playback system would need to be complementary. But thankfully many recordings are flat, so the speaker with the flat response sounds right - IMO.

Look we’re more or less on the same page.

But virtually all existing recordings are mixed on speakers with a downward sloping polar response, not on CD speakers.

(Ideally this downward slope is smooth ofc.)

 

[Cosmik]

Look we’re more or less on the same page.

But virtually all existing recordings are mixed on speakers with a downward sloping polar response, not on CD speakers.

(Ideally this downward slope is smooth ofc.)

I think our views are almost overlaid...

If the mixing was done with near field monitors, the room and dispersion angle would not have a great effect, anyway..?

But consider this: might a label such as BIS that tries to be purist about its recordings just commit the mic feed to disk and leave it that? Will they fiddle with EQ while listening to some monitor speakers, or will they on principle just record it 'straight' when they can? (I don't know the answer BTW). I would like to think they are not fiddling with EQ in some arbitrary manner.

If it was the case that they record things straight, then for those recordings at least, would it make sense that the speaker that plays it back should be neutral? (including constant directivity). As you know, in my opinion, that would usually result in a sloping in-room response, but this would be incidental; an artefact of the room. The aim would be to make the speaker neutral and that would be that. There would be no target curve.

If the speaker is not CD, some 'voicing' is required but this can be relatively scientific, being based on the known dispersion properties of the speaker. This voicing is not a 'cure' but is a partial compensation for the error.

I go back to the D&D guy's "No voicing required" comment. This does seem to back up this notion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

If the speaker is not CD, some 'voicing' is required but this can be relatively scientific, being based on the known dispersion properties of the speaker.

Again I agree with almost everything.

There’s no “voicing” required of a speaker with a downward sloping power response. Surely you don’t tilt your axial response upwards in the highs to compensate for your speakers’ downward sloping power response do you?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Also, mastering studios - which are where decisions about the overall tonal balance of the recording are normally made - are generally not likedead control rooms with near field monitors, but resemble real listening rooms more, with a longer Rt and typically greater distance between the engineer and the monitors.

 

[Cosmik]

Again I agree with almost everything.

There’s no “voicing” required of a speaker with a downward sloping power response. Surely you don’t tilt your axial response upwards in the highs to compensate for your speakers’ downward sloping power response do you?

The only difference is that I'm not saying that the speaker has a downward-sloping power response. I'm saying that the combination of the speaker and the room gives a sloping measurement.

And that this sloping measurement is not a meaningful target unless it is being used in combination with known properties of the speaker - in which case it is not the only way to get to the same result. Different imperfect speakers will approach subjectively neutral sound, each producing their own in-room response measurement, and those measurements will not all be the same.

My attitude is that the in-room measurement is of no interest because that is not what I am hearing. I am hearing the direct sound of the speaker, and I am hearing the sound of the room. Ideally the speaker will be neutral and the room sound will correspond with it naturally in every respect. The in-room measurement does not distinguish between the two. The in-room measurement does not tell me the characteristics of the speaker or the room. It gives me the combination of the two, but the combination is not what I hear.

If I start with a known, neutral speaker, I can ignore the in-room response. If I start with an imperfect speaker, again I can get much of the way to a subjectively neutral-ish sound without an in-room measurement. It may involve a formula based on baffle dimensions plus a depth adjustment by ear, for example. I have made no in-room measurement for my speakers - it is of no interest to me.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Again so close to agreeing @Cosmik!

The only reason I can’t fully agree is because I reject that it’s logically possible to have an even theoretically “perfect” speaker.

There’s just no information in the recording about the polar response of the reproduction system (nor the room for that matter).

To state my point in different terms: the recording is 2D (amplitude and frequency only) while the reproduction takes place in 3 dimensions.

So when it comes to this question, there is simply nothing in the recording in the first place for the reproduction to try to be true to.

By definition there is no “perfect” polar response.

Ofc constant directivity or a smoothly downward sloping power response are IMO the best things to aim for usually, but even choices between these or between versions of these come down partly to preference, partly to room, and partly to objectives (eg mixing vs mastering vs listening vs dancing etc).

There’s just no absolute, definitive way of solving this one...

EDIT: except perhaps by agreed-upon and widely adopted convention?

 

[Cosmik]

Again so close to agreeing @Cosmik!

The only reason I can’t fully agree is because I reject that it’s logically possible to have an even theoretically “perfect” speaker.

There’s just no information in the recording about the polar response of the reproduction system (nor the room for that matter).

To state my point in different terms: the recording is 2D (amplitude and frequency only) while the reproduction takes place in 3 dimensions.

So when it comes to this question, there is simply nothing in the recording in the first place for the reproduction to try to be true to.

By definition there is no “perfect” polar response.

Ofc constant directivity or a smoothly downward sloping power response are IMO the best things to aim for usually, but even choices between these or between versions of these come down partly to preference, partly to room, and partly to objectives (eg mixing vs mastering vs listening vs dancing etc).

There’s just no absolute, definitive way of solving this one...

EDIT: except perhaps by agreed-upon and widely adopted convention?

I refer you to my earlier comment: IMO the only variable left is the choice of angle of constant directivity. It is just a question of taste, and many people may share similar taste - that omni is too wide, and super-beamy is too narrow. A human head talking may be in the right ball-park regards directivity.

But maybe some recordings will benefit from different directivity. @oivavoi is dealing with this by giving himself the options of both cardioid and omni speakers.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I refer you to my earlier comment: IMO the only variable left is the choice of angle of constant directivity. It is just a question of taste, and many people may share similar taste - that omni is too wide, and super-beamy is too narrow. A human head talking may be in the right ball-park regards directivity.

But maybe some recordings will benefit from different directivity. @oivavoi is dealing with this by giving himself the options of both cardioid and omni speakers.

Why either omni or CD though? This seems arbitrary. Why not another directivity profile?

I think there are strong arguments for downward sloping power response personally:

• it's (more or less) the profile used by all engineers in recording, mixing and mastering
• it broadly approximates the directivity profile of most real world sound producers, especially voices and most instruments

But I don't think any particular profile can ever be perfect. Arguments can simply be put forward for why one or the other is better in a particular situation.

 

[andreasmaaan]

And that this sloping measurement is not a meaningful target unless it is being used in combination with known properties of the speaker - in which case it is not the only way to get to the same result.

I couldn't agree more btw. That's why I've been very careful to restrict this discussion to only the polar response (or power response) of the speaker.

 

[Cosmik]

Why either omni or CD though? This seems arbitrary. Why not another directivity profile?

Because only constant directivity (or omni which is just a special category of CD) doesn't need 'voicing' and doesn't sound different depending on which room it's in.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Because only constant directivity (or omni which is just a special category of CD) doesn't need 'voicing' and doesn't sound different depending on which room it's in.

Speakers with a downward sloping power response don't require voicing. The aim is always flat axial response and a downward sloping power response. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by voicing?

Also, CD (including omni) do sound different depending on the room they are in. In all cases (omni, CD, downward-sloping, etc), the room will absorb and reflect differently at different frequencies. Speakers will interact differently and sound different in different rooms. This is true regardless of the dispersion pattern, although of course the narrower the directivity the less the extent of interaction (due to a higher ratio of direct to reflected sound).